Regarding agendas - you have an agenda. I have an agenda. Most everyone has agendas. Scientists have agendas. As Dawkins said, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

Quote:See, while you may think my bias is showing when I accept Josephus' account of the census, you accept Luke's.

Yep. We have two accounts. I accept one, you accept the other. It's that simple. I'm not calling you unreasonable. With two opposing accounts, you pick one, or neither. I don't see why you guys think this is such a strong argument. It isn't. Two people disagree. It happens.

Quote:Not only do you accept Luke's account, but you accept all the other far fetched, magical stuff in the book because of your agenda.

It's more a case that I have an agenda because I accept the book. Either way, yes, I earlier noted that I have an agenda like everyone else. You're acting as if you made a major discovery.

(01-01-2014 08:10 AM)alpha male Wrote: You're acting as if you made a major discovery.

Nope. No one here behaves as if they've made a major discovery. But we *might* say that You've made no major discovery either. And while we promote Nothing Spectacular HERE you are Still toting that blinded-by-religion-holier-than-thou-bible-banging-head-numbing-superstitious-unwarranted--beejezebus-biased- bullshit.

Regarding agendas - you have an agenda. I have an agenda. Most everyone has agendas. Scientists have agendas. As Dawkins said, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

Quote:See, while you may think my bias is showing when I accept Josephus' account of the census, you accept Luke's.

Yep. We have two accounts. I accept one, you accept the other. It's that simple. I'm not calling you unreasonable. With two opposing accounts, you pick one, or neither. I don't see why you guys think this is such a strong argument. It isn't. Two people disagree. It happens.

Quote:Not only do you accept Luke's account, but you accept all the other far fetched, magical stuff in the book because of your agenda.

It's more a case that I have an agenda because I accept the book. Either way, yes, I earlier noted that I have an agenda like everyone else. You're acting as if you made a major discovery.

That's fair enough, although I do have a question. I mean this in the least hostile way possible, but why are you here? If you're not trying to convert anyone or even prove them wrong, are you just posting to say "agree to disagree"?

I'm not trying to pull a "GTFO theist!" on you, but I'm just trying to work through the reasons a person of group X would post on a forum of an opposing view point:

To convince other people they're wrong

To see if their arguments hold up to scrutiny

To debate for its own sake

To troll people

I'm not trying to accuse you of trolling, but based on this discussion and your last comment, the first two options seem right out, and the third option seems kind of iffy. What am I missing?

Accusations of "materialist bias" being, here as ever, the "biased" rejection of the accuser's narrowly particular extraordinary claims, in exactly the same manner in which the accuser likewise rejects the extraordinary claims put forward by the vast, vast majority of the world's other believers?

(02-01-2014 08:16 AM)cjlr Wrote: Accusations of "materialist bias" being, here as ever, the "biased" rejection of the accuser's narrowly particular extraordinary claims, in exactly the same manner in which the accuser likewise rejects the extraordinary claims put forward by the vast, vast majority of the world's other believers?

The Outsider Test for Faith.

I'd challenge alpha male to take it, but I know he doesn't have the intellectual honesty to do it.

(02-01-2014 07:05 AM)RobbyPants Wrote: That's fair enough, although I do have a question. I mean this in the least hostile way possible, but why are you here?

I'm here to challenge my own beliefs by engaging in intelligent discussion with people of opposing beliefs. I don't get much intelligent discussion. You may have noticed I'm here less and less. I guess you did notice, as you needed a PM to call my attention to this thread.

Quote:If you're not trying to convert anyone or even prove them wrong, are you just posting to say "agree to disagree"?

Sometimes I'm proving someone wrong. Sometimes that's simply not possible, because subjective judgments are involved. In such cases, though, consistency of application can usually still be examined.

Quote:I'm not trying to pull a "GTFO theist!" on you,

Unfortunately you're about the only person who isn't.

Quote:but I'm just trying to work through the reasons a person of group X would post on a forum of an opposing view point:

BTW the list function is cute but is annoying to respond to.

Quote:To convince other people they're wrong.

Show that people are wrong, at times. Convince? Pretty much impossible. People believe what they want to believe. Emotion has more to do with it than evidence or logic.

Quote:To see if their arguments hold up to scrutiny

That's a lot of it.

Quote:To debate for its own sake

That's a lot of it.

Quote:To troll people

Rarely, but I wouldn't say never.

Quote:I'm not trying to accuse you of trolling,

You might as well. Everyone else is. It's much easier to cry troll and charge intellectual dishonesty than to actually think and engage.

Quote:but based on this discussion and your last comment, the first two options seem right out, and the third option seems kind of iffy. What am I missing?

No offense, but it seems to me you sometimes lose focus regarding the initial charge and the burden of proof. I didn't create a thread claiming Luke is right. Others created a thread claiming Luke was wrong. I don't necessarily need to prove that Luke was right in order to prove that he wasn't wrong.

(02-01-2014 07:05 AM)RobbyPants Wrote: That's fair enough, although I do have a question. I mean this in the least hostile way possible, but why are you here?

I'm here to challenge my own beliefs by engaging in intelligent discussion with people of opposing beliefs. I don't get much intelligent discussion. You may have noticed I'm here less and less. I guess you did notice, as you needed a PM to call my attention to this thread.

Quote:If you're not trying to convert anyone or even prove them wrong, are you just posting to say "agree to disagree"?

Sometimes I'm proving someone wrong. Sometimes that's simply not possible, because subjective judgments are involved. In such cases, though, consistency of application can usually still be examined.

Quote:I'm not trying to pull a "GTFO theist!" on you,

Unfortunately you're about the only person who isn't.

Quote:but I'm just trying to work through the reasons a person of group X would post on a forum of an opposing view point:

BTW the list function is cute but is annoying to respond to.

Quote:To convince other people they're wrong.

Show that people are wrong, at times. Convince? Pretty much impossible. People believe what they want to believe. Emotion has more to do with it than evidence or logic.

Quote:To see if their arguments hold up to scrutiny

That's a lot of it.

Quote:To debate for its own sake

That's a lot of it.

Quote:To troll people

Rarely, but I wouldn't say never.

Quote:I'm not trying to accuse you of trolling,

You might as well. Everyone else is. It's much easier to cry troll and charge intellectual dishonesty than to actually think and engage.

Quote:but based on this discussion and your last comment, the first two options seem right out, and the third option seems kind of iffy. What am I missing?

No offense, but it seems to me you sometimes lose focus regarding the initial charge and the burden of proof. I didn't create a thread claiming Luke is right. Others created a thread claiming Luke was wrong. I don't necessarily need to prove that Luke was right in order to prove that he wasn't wrong.

If you provided something for any of us to think about the Engage part might just happen. As it is you seem only interested in promoting your own agenda. I've yet to see you take responses made your way and work to digest them. So far you only blow people off because you are set in your ways.

So - if you get to the part where you'd like to Challenge your beliefs and read what is typed to you - honestly - READ what people say --- then let us know.

(04-01-2014 06:10 AM)alpha male Wrote: I'm here to challenge my own beliefs by engaging in intelligent discussion with people of opposing beliefs. I don't get much intelligent discussion. You may have noticed I'm here less and less. I guess you did notice, as you needed a PM to call my attention to this thread.

(04-01-2014 06:10 AM)alpha male Wrote: No offense, but it seems to me you sometimes lose focus regarding the initial charge and the burden of proof. I didn't create a thread claiming Luke is right. Others created a thread claiming Luke was wrong. I don't necessarily need to prove that Luke was right in order to prove that he wasn't wrong.

No, I see what you mean.

That being said, if you are here to challenge your own beliefs, why do you almost never post them? I seldom see you make an actual assertion of your own belief (outside if the "deeper relationships" claim you made in my Heaven/PoE thread) and instead choose to try to pick apart other assertions.

(04-01-2014 06:10 AM)alpha male Wrote: No offense, but it seems to me you sometimes lose focus regarding the initial charge and the burden of proof. I didn't create a thread claiming Luke is right. Others created a thread claiming Luke was wrong. I don't necessarily need to prove that Luke was right in order to prove that he wasn't wrong.

Depends.

We can claim that Luke makes claims to history without contemporary attestation or corroboration, and this born out by the evidence.

We can claim that Luke disagrees with the other Gospels on key points of supposed history and theology, and once again this is born out by the evidence.

We can claim that Luke is anonymously written and that we have nothing else to judge the author's scholarship, skill, honesty, or due diligence against; and this is again born out by the evidence.

Does this mean that everything Luke wrote is wrong? Certainly not, but it does however leave us in a position to doubt everything in the book unless it can be corroborated with outside evidence (this includes both the mundane as well as the miraculous claims). Also remember that the Gospel of Luke itself starts with a claim to truth and authenticity, a claim that falls apart under subsequent challenge and scrutiny. So please, do tell who has the 'burden' of doing what now?

Luke 1 - Introduction (NASB)Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

Failing to 'prove' that Luke is wrong all of the time by no means proves anything attributed to him 'right'.